The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court discharged an accused in a hit-and-run case after noting that the Magistrate passed an order framing charges against him without sifting the material collected by the investigating agency for the limited purpose of framing an opinion as to whether prima facie offence was committed by him.

The Petitioner approached the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, challenging the order of the Sub-Judge/Spl. Railway Magistrate Jammu (Trial Magistrate), whereby charges for offences under Sections 279, 304-A IPC were framed against him.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar said, “The learned trial Magistrate without sifting the material collected by the investigating agency for the limited purpose of framing opinion as to whether prima facie offence is committed by the petitioner/accused has proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner/accused. The impugned order of the learned trial Magistrate is therefore, unsustainable in law.”

Advocate Rajeev Chargotra represented the Petitioner, while Dy. AG P. D. Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Police Officials had received information that a Swift Dezire vehicle was being driven by the petitioner/accused in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which he lost control over the said vehicle and a pedestrian, namely, Dina Nath, suffered fatal injuries leading to his death. It was also reported to the police that the driver had fled after leaving the vehicle on the spot.

An investigation of the case was conducted by the police, and it was found that on the date of the occurrence, the petitioner/accused was driving the vehicle when it was heavily raining, and the vehicle met with an accident resulting in the death of the deceased. Thus, offences under Section 279/304-A IPC were found established against the petitioner/accused and the charges were framed.

Reasoning

Referring to various precedents of the Apex Court, the Bench observed that at the time of framing of charge, the Court has only to consider the material available for framing an opinion as to whether, prima facie, an offence is committed which would require the accused to be put on trial. “It is open to the Court, at the stage of framing of charge, to ascertain as to whether the allegations made in the charge sheet against the accused are supported by the material collected by the I.O during investigation of the case.

Referring to the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the Bench noted that none of the witnesses had actually seen the petitioner/accused driving the vehicle prior to the accident or even on the date of the occurrence. “The statements of the aforesaid witnesses to the extent of involvement of petitioner/accused in the occurrence is hearsay in nature and as such, is inadmissible in evidence”, it said.

Finding no evidence on record to connect the petitioner/accused with the vehicle that was involved in the accident, the Bench noted that even if the material collected by the investigating agency during the investigation of the cases remained un-rebutted, the same was not sufficient to presume that the petitioner/accused had not committed the offence nor did not it raise any grave suspicion about his involvement in the occurrence.

“The allegations made in the charge sheet against the petitioner in the instant case are not supported by the material collected by the investigating officer during investigation of the case. Thus, it was not open to the learned trial Magistrate to frame charges against the petitioner/accused”, the Bench said.

Thus, finding the Magistrate’s Order to be unsustainable in law, the Bench set aside the same and discharged the accused.

Cause Title: Manohar Singh v. Union Territory of J&K (Case No.: CRM(M) No. 840/2021)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Rajeev Chargotra

Respondent: Dy. AG P. D. Singh

Click here to read/download Order







Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High CourtJustice Sanjay Dhar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.